diabetes Researchers Examine Increasing Veterans’ Disability Compensation

[carlie]

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/researchers-...ion-1.2028356#5

Researchers examine increasing veterans’ disability compensation

By Belén Cusi

Print this article

Share this article Published: Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The dramatic increase in the number of Vietnam War veterans receiving veterans’ disability compensation since the 1990s has been fueled more by growing incentives for lower-skill whites than by an actual increase in veteran disabilities, social science researchers said.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. candidate Brigham Frandsen, one of the authors of “The Complicated Effects of Military Service on Self-Reported Health,” spoke to about 20 students, professors and veterans at MIT Monday on his findings.

“The main point is to show the long term effect of serving in the military on disability rates,” Frandsen said. “This research speaks to an important component of the legacy cost of war, or at least of the Vietnam conflict and by extension to current wars.”

Frandsen said he found through his research that from 1999 to 2005, the number of veterans receiving compensation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder doubled, rising from over 90,000 to about 180,000. PTSD was found to be the leading claim for compensation, with diabetes following close behind.

After the Agent Orange decision of 2003 where diabetes was determined to be service-related, he said, the number of veterans claiming compensation for diabetes increased by almost one third in just two years, rising from roughly 140,000 to 180,000.

Dennis Kenney, a veteran who fought in Germany, said he attended the lecture because he is interested in Frandsen’s research. He said he and his fellow veterans were told they could go home once relieved of their duties if they didn’t think they had any service-related disabilities.

“I think there were about eight out of 800 of us who left, myself included,” he said. “I wanted to go home.”

He said he and his peers were advised by older veterans to be picky about their disabilities and try to get as much as they could for compensation, that they should “keep their options open insurance-wise.”

Frandsen said eight million veterans receive compensation from VDC, one-third of whom are Vietnam veterans. Many of these claims are being awarded “individually unemployed” status, which automatically qualifies a veteran for the maximum payment of $2,300 tax-free per month for as long as they live, he said.

Increasing incentives and institutional changes in the late 1990’s may be the cause for the rise in veteran compensation, he said, specifically Vietnam-era veteran compensation.

“The overall effect of serving in the military for these veterans was small,” Frandsen said.

But he said he found a large effect specifically on low-skill white men.

“If you were a low-educated man, getting disability compensation though the program looks like a great deal,” he said. “One way to get compensation is to show PTSD or any other service-incurred disability, and the compensation is fairly generous.”

In the late 1990s, the individually unemployed status began to be granted more freely; extensive paperwork was no longer required, Frandsen said. The VDC also began to presume eligibility instead of requiring that veterans have to file for it, he said, and attitude changes could be another cause for the compensation increase.

Frandsen and his colleagues said they are not suggesting that veterans are committing fraud, but that they are responding to incentives. But the increasing compensation to Vietnam in the present day could mean less compensation for future veterans, such as those of the current war in Iraq, he said.

He said his overall conclusion is the legacy cost of war seems to be more political and incentive-driven than health-related, something more than an inevitable cost of war.

“We’re not suggesting anything,” Joshua Angrist, one of Frandsen’s co-authors, said. “We’re not into call to action, just pointing things out.”

[timetowinarace]

Okay guys, flip me over. Time to cook the other side. LOL.

I understand where everyone is comming from. I see it different.

Sorry guys, but demographics are used in many studies. I understand you take offence to them as you read between the lines. These same demographics are used in TBI research. White low skilled males are many times more likely to suffer a TBI than any other demographic. It is not a racist comment. They are not calling us ignorant, or jerks, or anything else. It is a commonly used demographic. In TBI research this demographic is mostly used to show the higher risk taking group suffers more TBI's. It is also used in TBI research to show where the majority of comp seeking comes from. Yep, same group. I can provide links to this information if you doubt me.

If anyone is offended by the demographics, they have been offended their whole life. These are common, often used demographics.

To say their numbers are twisted is a guess. Unless you have done the numbers yourself or can cite published research that shows otherwise, I have to think their numbers are correct. My personall experience leads me to believe they are correct. Most of the VN vets I personally know that have become SC in the last few years for PTSD and/or AO are white low skilled males.

[poolguy11550]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

"Liers figure and figures often lie"

-Robert Hamilton

This is a skewed study, particularly because there is no true way to balance the results- what can one do, go to Russia and figure out how many non-educated white males are "comp seekers" from the Afgan war? Its simply impossible to refute or duplicate this study anywhere else with these same results under the same conditions.

I guess the guys whom did this study did not make the MIT card-counting team, nonetheless, its pointless research that lends no creditable data in any real world situation.

Edited December 17, 2009 by poolguy11550

[timetowinarace]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain

"Liers figure and figures often lie"

-Robert Hamilton

This is a skewed study, particularly because there is no true way to balance the results- what can one do, go to Russia and figure out how many non-educated white males are "comp seekers" from the Afgan war? Its simply impossible to refute or duplicate this study anywhere else with these same results under the same conditions.

I guess the guys whom did this study did not make the MIT card-counting team, nonetheless, its pointless research that lends no creditable data in any real world situation.

It's true, sometimes statistics are inaccurate. More often the results of statistics are misinterpreted.

I do agree with your last statement, "its pointless research that lends no creditable data in any real world situation".

As you also mentioned, statistics have made gamblers rich. It works for 21, roulete(biased betting), and poker. Card counters and biased betters are banned from casinos because the statistics work.

All marketers of consumer goods and services use statistics and demographics. Millions are spent each year on this information. My own thought's are that it must work. They continue to use them and make money. They are not comparing their demographics between US demographics and Russia's, yet somehow they are accurate enough to make billions with them. I wonder where these people learned about statistics? In a school? Some of them at MIT maybe? I'm going to guess that many of the bugs in statistical analisis have been worked out since Mark Twain's time.

The only way to know if the results are skewed is through peer review. At this point I haven't seen one. Other than that, any claims that it is skewed is opinion.

[poolguy11550]

My biggest issue is that there is no specific result, statistics and demographics would surly prove that the "non-educated" white male was the largest population group in service in the Vietnam war, so should it really be a surprise that now those very same white males are largest "claimed" benefit seekers as per statistics and demographics? The info in this study was good old regurgitated common sense- a real no-brainier.

Now, had the study results came up with for example something like- all veterans with O-positive blood types have been correlated to "benefit seekers", now then you have a specific result.

[timetowinarace]

My biggest issue is that there is no specific result, statistics and demographics would surly prove that the "non-educated" white male was the largest population group in service in the Vietnam war, so should it really be a surprise that now those very same white males are largest "claimed" benefit seekers as per statistics and demographics? The info in this study was good old regurgitated common sense- a real no-brainier.

I agree 100%.

My opinion is that the researchers have no ill intent towards veterans with this report. That the basic facts are true.

I will say that it is possible that someone with ill intent to try to use this report to their advantage. However, because of the things you mentioned in your post, I don't believe any such use would be taken seriously. I do not believe it will come from the researchers that did the study.

[Stretch]

I did go to the virtual wall and read many of death reports for the people who died in Viet Nam, a few years ago. The vast majority were 18 and 19 year old white men. These are facts that I know and studied.

Most of the educated people in the Vietnam war were officers. The 18 and 19 year olds did not have time to get an education before their mental and physical illnesses occurred in service. Many fought back, after service, and did go on for education, but this did not cure or heal their illness.

Many of these Vets were handicapped and refused help until absolutely necessary or until further injury and illness took them out of the work force. These men and women who have struggled through life should be applauded and not be dragged through the sophisticated Kangaroo Courts of MIT.

After the Mustang Sally's (Satell's) preach their opinions, years latter it will be referred to by Gov. officials as gospel.

It doesn't bother me at all. It is kind of corrupt though.

I know that these pseudo sooth sayers are all paying their way into positions that should be quite rewarding for their lives in the future.

The only reason I am against this kind of article is because the study ends with a "Just Saying, You Know" from a position of On-High, but the VA has away of quoting facts out of context. It is not hard to see these out-of-context VA excerpts, just look at your next SOC or SSOC.

If there is something with a double meaning the VA will take whatever favors the VA and not the Veteran. This is why many VSO's object to Trojan Horses that are presented in congress.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Stretch